( 1 ) THIS revision has been filed against the conviction of the applicant under S, 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence awarded to him is of Rs. 1,000 fine. The case of the prosecution was that on 22-2-1971, the Food Inspector found the applicant selling milk from a container which he was carrying on his cycle. It was said to be cow milk. The Food Inspector after serving the notice required by Rule 12 purchased from him 660 mis. of milk on payment of 0. 60 P. as price. The milk was divided into three phials after adding formalin. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst for chemical examination. On the report of the Public Analyst that the milk was deficient in non-fatty solids, the applicant was prosecuted. The accused admitted that the milk was sold to the Food Inspector after notice for sample and was divided into three phials. He claimed, however, that the milk was not adulterated, it was not meant for sale, and was being carried by him for his ailing mother. The accused also admitted his signatures on the receipt for the price paid to him.

( 2 ) THE prosecution examined the Food Inspector and one Sheo Baran Singh, Sanitary Jamadar, who had witnessed the sale transaction. It also produced in evidence the notice, the receipt and the report of the Public Analyst. According to the Public Analyst, the sample of milk contained fat 3,7 per cent and non-fatty solids 5. 6 per cent. It thus found that the sample was deficient in non-fatty solids contents by about 3 per cent.

( 3 ) THE accused, in his defence, produced one Pati Ram as a witness to state that the Food Inspector had been forcing the accused to put his signatures and the accused was explaining that he was. carrying the milk for his ailing mo! her. The witness further stated that neither anv sample of milk was taken in his presence nor was the milk sealed in his presence. The courts below have disbelieved the defence evidence. There is no error in their appreciation of this evidence as the accused himself in his statement in court admitted to have sold the milk when demanded by the Food1 Inspector and signed the receipt. There was no suggestion in his statement that he was at all unwilling to make the sale.

( 4 ) THE prosecution evidence in the case is sufficient to establish that the milk had been sold by the accused to the Food Inspector and the Food Inspector had paid the price of the same and sealed the sample after dividing it into three parts. It has further been proved from the report of the Public Analyst that the milk was deficient in non-fatty solids contents and was accordingly adulterated within the meaning of the Act.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant has contended that because fat content in the sample of milk was above the minimum prescribed and non-fatty solids were below the prescribed minimum, the milk could not be deemed to be adulterated, and the applicant could not legally be convicted for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Act. The standard for cow milk prescribed under the Rules is that minimum milk fat should be 3. 5 per cent and non-fatty solids 8. 5 per cent. When the law prescribes minimum for anything, the presence of that item in excess of the minimum is irrelevant. If the milk fat instead of 3. 5 per cent is 3. 7 per cent it only shows that it is not deficient in fat contents. The milk is adulterated because the non-fatty solids are less than the minimum erescribed. Instead of 8. 5 per cent they are only 5. 6 per cent.

( 6 ) adulteration has been defined in Section 2 to include food sold by a Vendor which is not of the nature and the quality demanded by the [purchaser or of the nature, substance, or quality which it purports or represents. It also, according to Clause (1), means an article of food whose duality or purity falls below the prescribed standard. The prescribed standard for cow milk is that it should contain fat 3. 5 per cent and non-fatty solids 8 5 per cent. As the